“亲爱的同胞们,振作起来吧!”

P. Hoffer, W. Hoffer
{"title":"“亲爱的同胞们,振作起来吧!”","authors":"P. Hoffer, W. Hoffer","doi":"10.7591/cornell/9781501726071.003.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"By 1774, events were pushing the lawyers to take sides whose lines of division could not be crossed. Nor could even the best connected of lawyers straddle these lines. One had to choose. Still, the lines that defined revolutionary and loyalist lawyering were only drawn in shifting sands. Had Parliament conceded some measure of colonial autonomy and had the revolutionary leadership been more patient with English policies, the crisis could have been averted or at least held at bay. But both sides seemed unwilling to acknowledge what continued intransigence would bring.","PeriodicalId":217492,"journal":{"name":"The Clamor of Lawyers","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“My Dear Countrymen Rouse Yourselves”\",\"authors\":\"P. Hoffer, W. Hoffer\",\"doi\":\"10.7591/cornell/9781501726071.003.0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"By 1774, events were pushing the lawyers to take sides whose lines of division could not be crossed. Nor could even the best connected of lawyers straddle these lines. One had to choose. Still, the lines that defined revolutionary and loyalist lawyering were only drawn in shifting sands. Had Parliament conceded some measure of colonial autonomy and had the revolutionary leadership been more patient with English policies, the crisis could have been averted or at least held at bay. But both sides seemed unwilling to acknowledge what continued intransigence would bring.\",\"PeriodicalId\":217492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Clamor of Lawyers\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Clamor of Lawyers\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7591/cornell/9781501726071.003.0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Clamor of Lawyers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7591/cornell/9781501726071.003.0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

到1774年,事态的发展迫使律师们站在不可逾越的一方。即使是人脉最广的律师也无法跨越这些界限。一个人必须做出选择。然而,界定革命和忠诚律师的界线只是在流沙中划定的。如果议会在一定程度上承认殖民地的自治权,如果革命领导人对英国的政策更有耐心,这场危机就可以避免,或者至少可以控制住。但双方似乎都不愿意承认继续不妥协将带来什么。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“My Dear Countrymen Rouse Yourselves”
By 1774, events were pushing the lawyers to take sides whose lines of division could not be crossed. Nor could even the best connected of lawyers straddle these lines. One had to choose. Still, the lines that defined revolutionary and loyalist lawyering were only drawn in shifting sands. Had Parliament conceded some measure of colonial autonomy and had the revolutionary leadership been more patient with English policies, the crisis could have been averted or at least held at bay. But both sides seemed unwilling to acknowledge what continued intransigence would bring.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Index Frontmatter Chapter 3. “My Dear Countrymen Rouse Yourselves” A Note on Sources Chapter 1. “The Worst Instrument of Arbitrary Power”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1